Purpose: Randomized multicenter trials form the basis of health care development. Regarding cancer research, pathology data are crucial. To maintain the quality of these trials, the auditing of subsequent processes is necessary. The aim of the present study was to examine the completeness and accuracy of data obtained from a special-purpose standardized pathology form compared with the data available through traditional hospital pathology reports.
Patients and methods: A retrospective comparison of pathology data case record forms with hospital pathology reports was performed using the data from 300 patients with primary rectal cancer. All of these patients had been included in a large multicenter trial in the Netherlands. Three independent audits were carried out. Special attention was given to the accuracy of parameters, which are important for prognosis and treatment decisions. Furthermore, various factors that possibly influence the occurrence of errors were investigated.
Results: Quality control of the pathology data revealed a high accuracy of 86.5% of all data items. However, only one third of the forms were complete and correct. Missing values were most prominent in the number of lymph nodes examined, whereas most errors were made in relation to the circumferential margin. Trained review pathologists made fewer major errors. Discrepancies were detected in all control rounds.
Conclusion: Successive rounds of quality control are required for accuracy and completeness of pathology data in multicenter trials. In addition to the special-purpose pathology forms, original pathology reports have to be collected, and the data should also be controlled by a trained pathology quality manager.